Support NeoGAF

[commedieu]

Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hate. What crime did he commit?



The police did not order him to do anything.

When the police tell me not to do something. I consider it an order.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Woooooooooooah

slow down cowboy

Define confront

He ran over and tried to hug him, and his gun accidentally went off.

 

[speedline]

I can't believe young black males have such horrible reputations. I mean, what did they ever do to deserve being watched? Bring on justice.

 

[Enzom21]

Hmmm... so apparently there is a pastebin post with all of George Michael Zimmerman's info and a link to the story and his facebook page. He has some interesting images on his page.

 

[KHarvey16]

When the police tell me not to do something. I consider it an order.

That's nice, however the law does not. The chief explained precisely what it was, did you see it?

 

[JGS]

OK, so I checked the location( http://www.407re.com/RetreatatTwinLakes) and it's not exactly a wealthy area. Not the ghetto either.

So the guy who shot the kid may be simply getting off the hook because the police are lazy.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hate. What crime did he commit?

In my eyes, he killed a kid because he was black. He watched him because he was black, followed him in a car because he was black, left the car and confronted him because he was black and was confident because he was armed and felt if anything should happen, he could shoot.

We will see how this turns out.

 

[Pandaman]

KHarvey, your patience is admirable.

 

[Vermillion]

So let's assume for a minute that the captain is super racist and only called it in as suspicious because the kid is black. After calling, he follows him and gets out of his car. He approaches the boy and asks him who he is, what he's doing and where he's going. This act, in your estimation, completely nullifies the man's legal authority to defend himself in the appropriate circumstances? You believe the act of questioning or approaching legally justifies a physical altercation being initiated by the 17 year old? I don't understand this argument.

No. But he was wrong to get out of the car in the first place.

Provided the circumstances are as they seem - i.e. racially motivated - then not only has the officer let his personal opinions get in the way of doing his job, but he furthermore broke protocol in interacting with the young man. Provided a physical altercation was then initiated by the 17 year old, it is only by a direct result of the officer's actions, which should lead to him being removed from whatever position he serves in.

After all, we would do the same for an officer who runs into a hostage situation and starts shooting at the captors, no?

 

[Aeonin]

Hmmm... so apparently there is a pastebin post with all of George Michael Zimmerman's info and a link to the story and his facebook page. He has some interesting images on his page.

Care to elaborate?

 

[ZZMitch]

Sounds like murder to me.

 

[LaserBuddha]

No. But he was wrong to get out of the car in the first place.

Provided the circumstances are as they seem - i.e. racially motivated - then not only has the officer let his personal opinions get in the way of doing his job, but he furthermore broke protocol in interacting with the young man. Provided a physical altercation was then initiated by the 17 year old, it is only by a direct result of the officer's actions, which should lead to him being removed from whatever position he serves in.

After all, we would do the same for an officer who runs into a hostage situation and starts shooting at the captors, no?

I think KHarvey and everyone else already agrees with this.

 

[Aeonin]

No. But he was wrong to get out of the car in the first place.

Provided the circumstances are as they seem - i.e. racially motivated - then not only has the officer let his personal opinions get in the way of doing his job, but he furthermore broke protocol in interacting with the young man. Provided a physical altercation was then initiated by the 17 year old, it is only by a direct result of the officer's actions, which should lead to him being removed from whatever position he serves in.

After all, we would do the same for an officer who runs into a hostage situation and starts shooting at the captors, no?

He was not an officer, right?
He's just some joe shmoe with a happy trigger finger.

 

[Princess Carl]

KHarvey, your patience is admirable.

What about my patience?

 

[Verelios]

So let's assume for a minute that the captain is super racist and only called it in as suspicious because the kid is black. After calling, he follows him and gets out of his car. He approaches the boy and asks him who he is, what he's doing and where he's going. This act, in your estimation, completely nullifies the man's legal authority to defend himself in the appropriate circumstances? You believe the act of questioning or approaching legally justifies a physical altercation being initiated by the 17 year old? I don't understand this argument.

We don't know anything beyond him getting out of his car. Whether it was because of something happening, we don't know. What we do know, is that there was no precedent to get out of his car. He was advised not to get out of his car, and furthermore, what right did he have, as a neighborhood watch captain, to get out of his car and deal with the situation? None. It wasn't life threatening, from what we know. It was just him and the kid. So now what? Him in the car, kid on the sidewalk. Him-Car. Kid-Sidewalk. I'm not seeing how the kid can bust straight through his car and rip him out.

KHarvey, I don't understand why you are fighting this so hard. Chief of police came out and confirmed the story the lawyer (who you said could not be trusted) told. Neighborhood watch guy has no leg to stand on here. He racially profiled a guy. Followed him. Called the police. They told him to stop following him. Continued following him. Then got out of his car in an attempt to confront this teen who had done nothing wrong. You look silly, honestly.

Exactly. Guy should have stayed put; he didn't. He's in the wrong here.

 

[Anticitizen One]

yea I hate the south

 

[Big-E]

Man, if only there was some way to avoid the situation. Like...staying in the fucking car and not harassing a boy for BEING BLACK.

You don't know for sure he did it because he was black (though there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance) but we do know that the man had no pressing reason to approach and the fact that he did, put him in the wrong.

 

[KHarvey16]

What about my patience?

Yeah if I were completely alone here I'd probably be less patient. Team work!

 

[Aeonin]

So is that all the facts there are?

What was so self-defense about what he did?

Did the kid hit him in the head with a skittle? Any bruises?

 

[Vermillion]

I think KHarvey and everyone else already agrees with this.

Well, that's my response to his response to me.

He was not an officer, right?
He's just some joe shmoe with a happy trigger finger.

In which case I'm certain there's a legal penalty for this.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You don't know for sure he did it because he was black (though there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance) but we do know that the man had no pressing reason to approach and the fact that he did, put him in the wrong.

I agree, we can never know for 100% certain, but the percentage of that not being the reason is so low, I will go ahead and dismiss that tiny percentage and claim quite confidently it was because he was black.

 

[DY_nasty]

In which case I'm certain there's a legal penalty for this.

i lol'd

 

[Fenderputty]

Exactly. Guy should have stayed put; he didn't. He's in the wrong here.

But legally he might be in the right! All these poor people exercising their gifts of patience so us peons will finally grasp this concept ...

 

[KHarvey16]

We don't know anything beyond him getting out of his car. Whether it was because of something happening, we don't know. What we do know, is that there was no precedent to get out of his car. He was advised not to get out of his car, and furthermore, what right did he have, as a neighborhood watch captain, to get out of his car and deal with the situation? None. It wasn't life threatening, from what we know. It was just him and the kid. So now what? Him in the car, kid on the sidewalk. Him-Car. Kid-Sidewalk. I'm not seeing how the kid can bust straight through his car and rip him out.

The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens. Those actions would not legally preclude justified self defense.

Should he have done it? If the kid was just walking likely not. But that doesn't have legal bearing in this case.

 

[Big-E]

I do understand all this and did see the links. I'm more just frustrated something like this could happen and the shooter can roam free. Even more frustrated people would play devil's advocate here.

I just don't belive this guy had an moral justification to shoot the kid regardless of his legal justification. Sometims the law is wrong. Just like pot crimes and the way in which crack laws are enforced.

The kid should NOT be dead. It wasn't an accident that he did die either. Just a shame.

Ya it is a sad day that physical confrontation of any kind leads to justifiable shootings.

 

[Aeonin]

The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens.

Ok, so the defense for this guy so far is that he can legally get out of the car and approach anyone. Got that.

What about the murdering part?

 

[Princess Carl]

Yeah if I were completely alone here I'd probably be less patient. Team work!

Time in thread vindicated

Ok, so the defense for this guy so far is that he can legally get out of the car and approach anyone. Got that.

What about the murdering part?

What do you do when you have seen the exact same post, answered it multiple times, but the point never gets across?

There is a vast abyss of missing information between the approach and the shooting that is necessary in legal theory to find guilt or not in this situation.
Once again, he did not walk up and shoot the kid, or he would be in jail.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens.

And I guess call someone the N word and wave a noose in front of him too and if he swings then boom, he's dead :/ I mean if that were the scenario, that's perfectly legal too right?

 

[slidewinder]

Kid was 70 feet away from the house man...damn. What a damn shame.

Yep. It's fucking sad; whatever exactly happened, there's no good reason for this kid to be dead.

 

[Onemic]

The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens.

So you don't think he was racially profiling the boy?

 

[The Incarnation]

Hmmm... so apparently there is a pastebin post with all of George Michael Zimmerman's info and a link to the story and his facebook page. He has some interesting images on his page.

But he can't be racist, he has Bob Marley quote.....Also likes John Coltrane.

 

[Fenderputty]

The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens. Those actions would not legally preclude justified self defense.

Should he have done it? If the kid was just walking likely not. But that doesn't have legal bearing in this case.

I guess we'll just have to take the shooters word for it then ehh?

Ya it is a sad day that physical confrontation of any kind leads to justifiable shootings.

That's what I'm screaming.

 

[Enzom21]

Care to elaborate?

Nothing horrible. Just interesting...

 

[Professor Beef]

So is that all the facts there are?

What was so self-defense about what he did?

Did the kid hit him in the head with a skittle? Any bruises?

Hey man, Skittles have tons of ingredients. That poor Captain might have been allergic to one of them, and that lousy black kid surely knew his weakness. Therefore, he must be stopped!

 

[Big Baybee]

The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens. Those actions would not legally preclude justified self defense.

Should he have done it? If the kid was just walking likely not. But that doesn't have legal bearing in this case.

So you approve of some random dude following kids down the street at night? lol

 

[Aeonin]

I guess we'll just have to take the shooters word for it then ehh?

Well lets ask the black kid. Oh wait, he's dead.

 

[KHarvey16]

Ok, so the defense for this guy so far is that he can legally get out of the car and approach anyone. Got that.

What about the murdering part?

The incident report and the eyewitness describe a fight between the two. The 17 year old was described as being on top of the man and hitting him. Again, if the physical confrontation was started by the teen, the man's actions are self defense. If the physical altercation was initiated by the older man, it is murder(or manslaughter at the least).

 

[Log4Girlz]

So you approve of some random dude following kids down the street at night? lol

The kid attacking could have been perfectly legal too. But alas, he is dead and cannot give testimony.

 

[Vermillion]

i lol'd

:/

I mean, I don't know what it is. If the events when down as we're assuming here, then the officer did act in self-defense - which may ameliorate the killing. In which case we may be left with other, lesser forms of punishment.

 

[60_gig_PS3]

The problem with the self defense claim is the fact that the boy lives there. You dont get attacked randomly by a member of your own gated community. If it weren't for that inconvenient small detail the guy might have gotten away with the murder.

Surely the kid was provoked and certainly Not surprising that a guy with a "defensive" open carry license would be going around looking for trouble.

 

[DY_nasty]

So you approve of some random dude following kids down the street at night? lol

There is nothing threatening about a car riding up on you in the middle of the night as you walk back from a convenience store.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

This thread. is...odd... Kharvey no offense, but with the info given...I don't get your posts.

 

[Sub_Level]

It's a tragedy regardless of what the shooter gets as punishment.

 

[Verelios]

The man can get out of his car and approach anyone he likes. He can ask questions and speak to people, regardless of who it is or if he's called the police. I don't understand where you and others believe this legal theory comes from. The man did nothing legally wrong if he approached the boy(provided he didn't threaten him or draw his gun or something). He and the boy are regular citizens. Those actions would not legally preclude justified self defense.

Should he have done it? If the kid was just walking likely not. But that doesn't have legal bearing in this case.

..Okay. So a suspicious individual is spotted -possibly dangerous-, and your options are:

1. Call emergency
2. Get out of the car to assess the situation
3. Stay in car and wait for help
4. Call emergency, ignore advice, and then get out of car to assess situation

And you pick 4? Really? I mean, seems this is pretty simple; the precursor was getting out of the car. Who gets out to confront a person they find suspicious enought to call 911 about anyway? And with a gun ready. Just in case right?

 

[Log4Girlz]

:/

I mean, I don't know what it is. If the events when down as we're assuming here, then the officer did act in self-defense - which may ameliorate the killing. In which case we may be left with other, lesser forms of punishment.

What if it was the armed Zimmerman who pushed the kid first? Oh, we'll never know because there is no eyewitness account of the beginning of the fight. But we do know he's already followed him, got out of his car against police advice...I put my money on Zimmerman starting the altercation.

 

[Fenderputty]

The incident report and the eyewitness describe a fight between the two. The 17 year old was described as being on top of the man and hitting him. Again, if the physical confrontation was started by the teen, the man's actions are self defense. If the physical altercation was initiated by the older man, it is murder(or manslaughter at the least).

Yeah ... the kid walking home to bring his brother skittles started the fight. It wasn't the man following the kid out of suspision in a car. It wasn't the man getting out of the car to confront the kid. It was clearly the kid.

 

[slidewinder]

And in order for the "captain" to be arrested, he'd have to be charged with something. It may not be as crazy as it at first seems that he hasn't been arrested if the authorities genuinely aren't yet sure what, if any, charges could be justified.

 

[Aeonin]

The incident report and the eyewitness describe a fight between the two. The 17 year old was described as being on top of the man and hitting him. Again, if the physical confrontation was started by the teen, the man's actions are self defense. If the physical altercation was initiated by the older man, it is murder(or manslaughter at the least).

Well there ya go. I must've missed that.

Although going by the call to 911 that he was tailing the teen, leaving his car to go to him with a loaded gun - I'd say if we were talking about STARTING it, I'd say it was him. But now I think you're kind of in a gray area that I can understand.

Any indication of what started the fight? According to the one who lived? Or eyewitnesses?

 

[echoshifting]

The report was cited in an article posted previously. Did you miss it?

I guess I did. I am looking through all these stories and I can't find any that say this:

The police felt the injuries were consistent with a situation in which lethal force was justified.

Which is what you said. I'm seriously asking at this point, did I just miss a story?

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

:/

I mean, I don't know what it is. If the events when down as we're assuming here, then the officer did act in self-defense - which may ameliorate the killing. In which case we may be left with other, lesser forms of punishment.

What officer?!